When the temporary resident of the White House, with great fanfare, declared “victory” on the twelfth day of the war, we were reminded of those boys from our childhood who, after being bowled out in cricket, would solemnly say by propping their bat on the ground: “Actually, I was just letting the ball check the wicket’s sturdiness.” Mr. Trump’s claim felt much the same.

The “sixty percent enriched uranium” that had kept Washington’s policymakers awake at night is still announcing its presence in Iranian laboratories. If the objective was to eliminate it, then perhaps the definition of success needs to be changed in the dictionary. As for “Regime Change,” signs of change are now more evident in Washington’s politics than in Tehran. The attempt to present Iran’s obsolete crown prince as an alternative is akin to a political showcase where an item is occasionally dusted off and displayed to assure a buyer that an alternative exists, even if they are still searching for the way to Iran on Google Maps.

Observing this entire scenario reminds some commentators of the famous strategy called “Big Lie.” Its principle is quite simple: if the truth is weak, make an extremely grand claim. This amplifies the narrative so much that the voice of truth cannot be heard. Tony Schwartz, the phantom author of Trump’s book “The Art of the Deal,” says that “his goal is never accuracy, but dominance.” The White House media team is currently busy presenting the war like a Hollywood action film. Videos released by the Pentagon and Central Command (CENTCOM) feature B2 bombers, HIMARS rocket systems, and F18 aircraft as the main characters. A video set to John Lee Hooker’s song “Boom Boom,” with the voices of Trump, Hegseth, and Rubio echoing in the background, makes the entire scene seem no more real than a video game. According to communication experts, the military is “fetishizing weapons” in this way, much like “Top Gun” showcases backlit fighter jets.

Israel’s situation also resembles that of a wrestler who impresses the entire crowd by practicing with clubs before entering the arena, but once the match begins, he immediately starts questioning the referee about ethical principles at the first “dhobi patka” (a wrestling move). The Iron Dome defense system, built at a cost of billions of dollars, was once considered an impenetrable shield, but the recent war has once again proven that no defense system is perfect. Every shield has a hole somewhere. In this war, it proved to be a sieve against the barrage of Iranian missiles.

Iran had been preparing for this moment for years. It decentralized its command structure, hid its modern missiles in mountainous regions, and produced thousands of cheap drones. The current situation is that the US Fifth Fleet’s headquarters in Bahrain has been destroyed, the fuel processing facilities of the Gulf states have been reduced to ashes, and the world’s busiest airports and artificial economic systems have been forced to shut down.

The interesting thing about global politics is that ethics often change with geography. When human lives were lost during the bombing of Gaza, it was wrapped in the terms “Right to Self-Defense” or “Collateral Damage.” When innocent children and unarmed besieged women wailed from hunger as a result of decades of aggression and blockade against Palestinians, most of the international community remained a silent spectator. But when missiles came from the other direction, the international media suddenly remembered the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

Prince Turki Al Faisal, former Saudi intelligence chief, openly stated that “if the Rules-Based Order were truly impartial, American B2 bombers would also be dropping bombs on Dimona and other Israeli nuclear sites.” He observes that the West’s imposition of sanctions on Russia and condemnation of the invasion of Ukraine, while allowing Israel to do the same, is the worst example of double standards. (It is wished that this aspect would also become clear to the stakeholders of the two brothers’ shop in Lahore, where the pursuit of praise at the breakfast table was considered commendable propagation, alas.)

This is the point where not just double, but triple standards of international politics become clear to everyone. Israel, which has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has never faced any sanctions despite possessing nuclear weapons, is today giving a moral argument to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Experts in political psychology, under Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, had proven that people often imitate the behavior of powerful personalities. Trump’s populist aggressive political language and dramatic style have also fostered similar imitation among his supporters. Thus, political debates sometimes turn into emotional slogans rather than arguments. Critics like George Conway say that Trump is following Hitler’s “Propaganda Playbook,” where the biggest lie is told because people cannot believe that anyone could tell such a big lie.

In the context of foreign policy debates, this war has conventionally become a quagmire, easy to enter and difficult to exit. According to some analysts, this new escalation in the Middle East also appears to be moving in the same direction. Initially, every party believes the water will be shallow, but soon it is realized that the mud has reached the neck, not just the knees.

Colin Powell was fearful of the lesson from Vietnam before America got stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan. He believed that America getting stuck in the Middle East quagmire would prove devastating. Today, that same fear has become a reality. It costs the US 600 times more to intercept one missile launched by Iran. Air defense systems have been depleted, and even missile defense systems have had to be removed from South Korea and Japan and installed in the Gulf.

Middle Eastern politics is essentially a chessboard. Here, moves are not made immediately but with patience. The Islamic Republic of Iran, with its thousands of years of civilization, learning sacrifice from Karbala and the Imams, is playing with the same patience and strategy, and not just playing, but tiring the opponent and making them play on its terms, and playing exceptionally well. Whereas Washington’s politics often falls victim to haste in the pursuit of immediate results. Christopher Chivvis rightly said that “wars initiated for display (showy impressions) rarely end with a favorable outcome.”

Seeing all this, one is involuntarily reminded of Hazrat Yousafi. He used to say that some people are so modest that even if they are barefoot, they don’t forget to cover their heads. The same happens in global politics. When the garment of facts begins to be shed, the cap of narrative is put on. And this narrative is no longer limited to Iran. It has encompassed the entire region. Oil trade passing through the Strait of Hormuz has been almost completely paralyzed, insurance companies are refusing to provide coverage to ships, and the US Navy itself has had to move its carrier battlegroups away from the range of Iranian missiles.

Finally, the question remains: how will history view this declaration? Was it truly a declaration of victory, or a new version of that ancient story where the king believes he is wearing royal attire, even though everyone in the court silently knows that no such attire exists. And perhaps this is what is called the cloak of victory and the undergarment of defeat in politics.